On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 08:49:17PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: > On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 09:46:13AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 01:22:12PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: > > > debian 'unstable' is perfectly usable for production servers, using > > > it for such does not require any more caution about upgrades than > > > using debian 'stable' or debian 'frozen'. > > > > Like during the Perl transition period, or when a recent libstdc++ > > broke apt, or when su stopped being able to su, or when .... > > > > Need I continue? > > i repeat: "[using unstable] does not require any more caution about > upgrades than [using stable]" > > upgrading to whatever the latest stable releases is requires just > as much caution/paranoia as upgrading to whatever is in the latest > unstable. anyone who trusts the latest debian stable release on their > critical/production servers without testing it on other machines first > deserves whatever they get. > > if you have a clue and you are cautious then both stable and unstable > are safe. > > if you don't have a clue or you are not cautious, then neither are.
If you are so careful and clueful, why do you need instant access to an incoming mirror? -- -----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------ / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'